Gun Control Under Obama
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#3486 Jan 27, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Let us know when the Catholics -- or Protestants -- begin raising their children to be suicide bombers or jet pilots who kill themselves and innocent civilians while shouting, "Praise be to Jesus Christ our Lord!"
How about blowing up Federal Buildings and public parks?
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#3487 Jan 27, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama ignored the Constitution and made what he termed a "recess" appointment when Congress was NOT in recess.
FYI...GWB did not.
The fact that the Senate wasn't it in recess wasn't decided until last week when a court redefined the term.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#3488 Jan 27, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Heller had absolutely nothing to do with the right to bear arms as a member of a militia.
"The two sides in this case have set out very different interpretations of the Amendment. Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting). Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. See Brief for Respondent 2–4."

and further down...

"These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia."

Maybe you should change "woof" to "yipe, yipe, yipe".

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#3489 Jan 27, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to learn to discern between passages in which an author of an opinion is discussing historical background, and those in which he/she is issuing a holding.
Scalia clearly discussed (in dicta) that regulations that are reasonable would pass constitutional muster.
woof
Subject to strict scrutiny.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#3490 Jan 27, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>The phrase was laid out well in the ruling. What part of his logic do you not understand or agree with?
I understand it just fine. What I disagree with is the excising of words from the constitution simply because they don't fit the conclusion you want to reach. As I said, I don't believe there has been another SCOTUS case in which words from the constitution were held to have no effect, aside from the preamble.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#3491 Jan 27, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that the Senate wasn't it in recess wasn't decided until last week when a court redefined the term.
Obviously, you relish making yourself a fool.
You've been proven wrong repeatedly on this thread.
Like the leftist you are, you refuse to acknowledge it.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#3492 Jan 27, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>There is no constitutional duty for the senate to hold confirmation hearings. There is only the requirement for the officers of the US to be approved by the senate before having official capacity unless filling vacancies during a recess.
I would disagree. The Senate has a duty to provide its advice and consent to certain presidential appointees. Failing to do so is a breach of the Senate's constitutional obligation.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#3493 Jan 27, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
How about blowing up Federal Buildings and public parks?
I'll wait for your citation proving that the perpetrators of these events carried out their deadly missions for the cause and in the name of Jesus Christ...and were then honored as martyrs by those of their faiths.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#3494 Jan 27, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
"The two sides in this case have set out very different interpretations of the Amendment. Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting). Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. See Brief for Respondent 2–4."
and further down...
"These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia."
Maybe you should change "woof" to "yipe, yipe, yipe".
I think the point that Duke is trying to make is that the issue before the court dealt with an individual's right under the 2d, not with the right of a militia under the 2d. Just because one side argued that the 2d was restricted to militias does not make Heller a militia case.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#3495 Jan 27, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah. That's a good point. What other Senate has held pro forma sessions to obstruct recess appointments?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/...
Adif understanding

Chicago, IL

#3496 Jan 27, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that the Senate wasn't it in recess wasn't decided until last week when a court redefined the term.
you are wrong. The senate has been in session when these appointments were made. The senate opened and close the day the same days the NLBR appointments were made. Obama decided he could ignore that and claim a recess appointment because no business was done.

Its spelled out right there in the ruling.

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#3497 Jan 27, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
How about blowing up Federal Buildings and public parks?
How about it? It's never been done in the name of Christianity.
Adif understanding

Chicago, IL

#3498 Jan 27, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand it just fine. What I disagree with is the excising of words from the constitution simply because they don't fit the conclusion you want to reach. As I said, I don't believe there has been another SCOTUS case in which words from the constitution were held to have no effect, aside from the preamble.
When that happens, let me know, Until then stop getting your panties in a bunch because you fail to understand English or how sentences and writing styles convey complete thought.

As I said, the ruling spells this all out.

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#3499 Jan 27, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll wait for your citation proving that the perpetrators of these events carried out their deadly missions for the cause and in the name of Jesus Christ...and were then honored as martyrs by those of their faiths.
He's going to bring up McVeigh, a self-professed atheist. All Che has is lies and anti-Catholic hate so he'll scream that McVeigh was Catholic.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#3500 Jan 27, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>He's going to bring up McVeigh, a self-professed atheist. All Che has is lies and anti-Catholic hate so he'll scream that McVeigh was Catholic.
Che's got nothin'.
Adif understanding

Chicago, IL

#3501 Jan 27, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
I would disagree. The Senate has a duty to provide its advice and consent to certain presidential appointees. Failing to do so is a breach of the Senate's constitutional obligation.
there is no provision mandating the senate perform that function in the constitution. It would undermine the separation of powers if there was and your suggestion of it only shows how little you know about the constitution or the government. All offices of the United state has to be created by law and the is not entitles to having any officers under him constitutionally except for military officials when the militia is raised or we hold a standing army. All other posts exist at the grace of congress created by law- or are otherwise the sole responsibility of the administration to execute the duty of unless otherwise provided for by law.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#3502 Jan 27, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the point that Duke is trying to make is that the issue before the court dealt with an individual's right under the 2d, not with the right of a militia under the 2d. Just because one side argued that the 2d was restricted to militias does not make Heller a militia case.
That's exactly the point.

Adif is simply mistaking the Court's "discussion" of either historical context, or the parties' pleadings and positions, for the Court's holdings. They are not.

Read closely pages 242 through 247:

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/col...

For more on the subject:

http://www.akronconlawjournal.com/articles/pa...

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm...

Heller was not a "militia" 2A rights case.

If I have double posted this information, I apologize.

woof

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3503 Jan 27, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Aye, there's the rub.
Now you see why I keep my mouth shut and just ask questions when these forums get 'over my head/out of my area of expertise?'

Who said. "Better to remain silent and thought a fool then to open you mouth and verify it."

Or something close to that.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#3504 Jan 27, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
...If I have double posted this information, I apologize.
yap
You should apologize for all of your posts.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#3505 Jan 27, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Subject to strict scrutiny.
That issue was never addressed in Heller, and is now causing some problems in the Appellate Courts because of it.

woof

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Poll Panty hose vs bare skin What is your preference? 1 hr Linda 143
Muslims beat woman for wearing bikini French ou... 1 hr Linda 26
For Cat Lovers Only! 2 hr Colonel Pale Rider 176
Body Camera For Police 2 hr Colonel Pale Rider 26
News Mosquito boom: Pests, including West Nile carri... 7 hr Duke for Mayor 4
Police are cowards 8 hr Duke for Mayor 24
Fake Plastic Surgeon Performs Procedures On Doz... 8 hr Duke for Mayor 5
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages